Extra-Sensory Perception

[Thulsa Doom]

TABLE XXXVI

Distance Between Agent and Percipient, in P.T.; 4 Subjects

 
   

 
   

 
   

Same Room
   

8-12 feet
Wall Between
   

28-30 feet
2 Walls
Between
   

250 Miles

Item
No.
   

Percipient
   

Agent
   

Trials
   

Avge.
per
25
   

Trials
   

Avge.
per
25
   

Trials
   

Avge.
per
25
   

Trials
   

Avge.
per
25

1.
   

Cooper
   

Miss Ownbey
   

1,800
   

9.2
   

300
   

5.8
   

 
   

 
   

 
   

 

2.
   

Miss Bailey
   

Miss Ownbey
   

275
   

11.4
   

450
   

9.7
   

150
   

12.0
   

 
   

 

3.
   

Zirkle
   

Miss Ownbey
   

950
   

14.0
   

750
   

14.6
   

250
   

16.0
   

 
   

 

4.
   

Miss Turner
   

Miss Ownbey
   

275
   

7.7
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

200
   

10.1

 
   

 
   

 
   

3,300
   

10.6
   

1,500
   

11.4
   

400
   

14.5
   

200
   

10.1

The table shows the general increase in scores with distance, and this is more emphatically shown by totalling the distance P.T. data, as will be done in Table XXXVII showing that in large numbers of trials distance makes a significant advance in scores. The difference of 1.2 in the

p. 107

average per 25 is of mathematically justified significance, being 5.8 times the p.e. for the difference. Two great points are affected by this fact: first, on the question of sensory perception (unconscious or fraudulent), it is very important indeed to find that the more the possibility of sense perception is excluded by walls and distance, the better the scores; and, second, on the question of the underlying physics of the phenomena, it is most baffling to present-day physical theorizing in terms of wave mechanics, since, instead of falling off rapidly with the square of the distance, as all radiation intensity is thought to do, it actually significantly increases with distance.

The P.T. totals of these five subjects have been given already in Table XXVII but are more fully presented here as a background for completeness.

TABLE XXXVII

P.T. Totals, General, and for Distance Comparisons; Five Subjects

Item
No.
   

Conditions
   

Trials
   

Hits
   

Deviation
and p.e.
   

Value
of X
   

Avge.
per 25

1.
   

All P.T. data,
  5 major subjects
   

10,275
   

3,937
   

+1,882
   

±27.3
   

68.8
   

 9.6

2.
   

All P.T., same room,
  Miss Ownbey as agent; 1
  Fan going, no vision
   

3,300
   

1,401
   

741
   

15.5
   

47.8
   

10.6

3.
   

All distance P.T., 8 ft. to 250 miles.
  Wall between, fan going;
  Miss Ownbey as agent
   

2,100
   

995
   

575
   

12.4
   

46.4
   

11.8

With these results our chapter closes but the work goes on. One wishes at most points to go on to larger figures and for more variations, but with 90,000 trials there is some justice in a pause for discussion. Truth, however, is not a matter purely of huge figures, and we must often be more attentive to small but meaningful series than to those numbering in thousands.

I feel, however, that the task of interpretation of these data is not one for the weeks spent in the writing of this report, but one rather for years of thinking about them and discussing them. So that, however they are interpreted now, I shall steadfastly refuse to defend the interpretation and shall hold it as necessarily tentative. I hope that readers will, in the main, do the same.

.     .     .     .     .     .     .     .

Here again we have to add a final note on current progress achieved during the writing-up period. Miss Turner and Miss Ownbey resumed their distance P.T. work after a short rest and at 300 miles distance this time, but could not get back to good scoring. After four runs at chance average they discontinued again for a time. Miss Ownbey was in an

p. 108

unusual situation; she was expecting soon to be married and, for lack, perhaps, of a better theory, we suppose it may have been hard for her to give her fullest attention to the role of E.S.P. agent under such circumstances. This is, of course, only a conjecture. Miss Turner stated that she could not get back the feeling of rapport.

At the same time a P.C.-distance test was made with Miss Turner, Miss Ownbey handling the cards for her. Miss Ownbey would place the card, without observing its figure, on a book in the center of a table in her home in Asheville, N.C., with which Miss Turner was familiar, and Miss Turner in Wilson, N. C., would call the cards at the intervals arranged for, every 3 minutes. These began low, 4 per 25 for the first 2 runs. Then she rose to 7, 8, 7 in the next three, when the experiment was interrupted for a time. (But see the Pearce distance-P.C. results, which began about the same time, addendum to Chapter 7.)

Cooper and Miss Ownbey, too, were at this time engaged in a distance P.T. experiment over 7 or 8 miles of extent but it did not rise above the chance level, either, before it was interrupted. There were 7 runs at an average of only 4.4. Cooper did not expect it to succeed, since at a distance he loses his feeling of rapport.

Also at the same time Miss Ownbey and Zirkle tried distance P.T. at 165 miles, but got little above np or chance average, 5.5 in 25 for the 10 runs tried. This, too, may be interpretable in the same way as suggested for the Turner-Ownbey failure. But, actually, we do not know, in so complex a situation, all that might be concerned. Zirkle, too, felt out of rapport and wrote his impression on his records before he knew of the low scores he was making.

And, in some respects, it is more reassuring to have such failures following such striking successes than to have uniform success. First, because it is essential that we have variation of phenomena to reveal to us the laws of nature. And, second, the sceptic can get some degree of reassurance on the ground that at this point when we expected good results to come in, as they had done before under the same conditions, they failed us flatly, although any practise of deception was as fully available as before. Nor was it because we changed conditions essentially, except as the subjects themselves change from time to time. There were, of course, three experiments being conducted with one agent and, as mentioned before, she had other things on her mind. Naturally we expect strain to interfere with perception; and good agency has been shown above to be required for good P.T. perception. In any event, Miss Ownbey's long and splendid record as agent can take a lot of failures without appreciable suffering. And Miss Turner's brilliant series of P.T. at 250 miles cannot be statistically impaired by a score of such failures.

Footnotes

91:1 Since the above was written Cooper has begun D.T., with some success.

92:1 Later on he did in fact qualify very successfully, getting, in the 1,150 trials of the later series, a deviation of over 15 times the p.e., and an average of 8 per 25, which is only .8 below his P.T. average for the same period.

98:1 Lodge, Oliver, J. D. Sc. "An account of some experiments in thought-transference". Proc. S.P.R., 2: pp. 189-200, 1884.

100:1 Miss Parsons has since become Mrs. L. C. Apgar.

107:1 Zirkle's period of illness, of course, excepted. It is included in item No. 1.

http://sacred-texts.com/psi/esp/esp15.htm

[Fire in the Sky]

p. 109
PART III. EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION
CHAPTER 9
Elimination of Negative Hypotheses

This chapter will be largely a summary of the special evidence bearing upon the different hypotheses that have been offered for the explanation of such phenomena as we have obtained. I will take up the principal hypotheses, one at a time, with a summarized regrouping of the evidence that bears particularly on the evaluation of the given hypothesis. The detailed conditions will mostly be omitted, since they have been given in Part II, along with the presentation of the results. These main hypotheses have been referred to occasionally in Part II, in passing. Doubtless, most readers will already be convinced of their inapplicability by this time. In such case, this chapter may be omitted and the thread taken up at Chapter 10.

[Fire in the Sky]

(a) THE HYPOTHESIS OF CHANCE

Logically, the first alternative suggestion that is evoked to explain unusual results such as these high scores in card-guessing is that it "just happened". That is, that no special principle of causation is responsible; rather, that a number of unimportant circumstances contributed the peculiar results. This general absence of a special causal principle we call "accident" or "chance", and we mean merely that no recognized general causal principle is responsible. This we can call the Chance Hypothesis.

[Fire in the Sky]

According to the Chance Hypothesis, we would be as likely to go below chance average, if we ran 90,000 more trials, as we would be to go above. All the positive deviation we have accumulated has just been one grand, persistent accident, stretching through three years of varied conditions and over a wide range of subjects. It has actually been suggested to me by a colleague urging this hypothesis that I will some day find my results swinging as far in a negative deviation as they have already in the positive. What, then, can we say to this?

[Fire in the Sky]

First, there is the mathematical evaluative principle of probability, by which we may be sure of the odds against an event occurring by chance alone. Since this principle is used throughout Part II and is explained at the end of Chapter 2, it is unnecessary to go into its explanation here. It is only necessary to repeat that general practise among statisticians relies upon a deviation of 4 times the probable error (of the mean expectation, n.p.) for the minimum limit of significance to reveal the operation of a general factor that is something more than mere accident or chance. This is arbitrary (but one might require 3 or 5 as his minimum value for X [i.e., X=d/p.e.] if he feels it is warranted.). With X=4, the odds

p. 110

[Fire in the Sky]

against the Chance Hypothesis are 142 to 1; but with X = 5, the odds advance to 1,300 to 1. If X = 6, we have the Chance Hypothesis at a disadvantage of 20,000 to 1. And as X increases to 10, the odds against chance are enormously increased, approximately 10,000,000,000 to 1. Note the tremendous jumps of these odds with every unit of the value of X. What "chance", then, has the Chance Hypothesis, when from chapter to chapter in Part II the value of X rises by leaps and bounds to a grand level of 111.2 and is still going up daily? The relative certainty herein established for the Extra-Sensory Perception principle thus goes far beyond the highest standards and requirements we have for any phase of inquiry.

[Fire in the Sky]

If one wishes to test out the mathematical value for probability, it is easy to do. I have, myself, conducted 4,000 "chance" trials, by first making and recording the calls, and later shuffling the cards and checking them against the recorded calls. This eliminated clairvoyance; I did not even try to think of any particular pack of cards. Chance average of 4,000 trials is 800. I got 801. For the last 1,000 of these I took the scores made by Pearce, who was then averaging around 10 hits per 25 trials; I took the same packs of cards he had been using (about 12 in number), cut them once each time and checked them against the record. Chance expectation was, of course, 200 for 1,000 trials and Pearce had almost doubled this, getting 386 correct. My "chance" control series, however, gave only 204 or a deviation of less than .5 of the probable error. Of course, the mathematical theory has been tested many times and it would be a waste of time to go further into testing it for our purpose. Also, the minimal value of 4 for significance in X seems, according to this brief testing, amply adequate and relatively conservative.

[Fire in the Sky]

Most people are more impressed by a spectacular series of successive hits than by lower but cumulative scoring. Pearce's scoring 25 straight under clairvoyant conditions, in my presence, and Zirkle's 26 straight hits in pure telepathy with my assistant, Miss Ownbey, are the best instances of these. Other subjects have approached these. Linzmayer scored 21 in 25 with clairvoyance, in my presence; Miss Ownbey herself, unwitnessed, scored 23, pure clairvoyance. Miss Turner's score of 19 in distance P.T. work stands out because of the 250 miles between her and the agent. Miss Bailey scored 19 in P.T. in the same room with the agent, as did also Cooper. The odds against getting one series of 25 straight hits by mere chance would be 525 which is nearly 300 quadrillions—just one score of 25! A small part of our 90,000 trials.

[Fire in the Sky]

(b) FRAUD HYPOTHESIS

Once we are certain that we are not dealing with a mere accidental deviation—that the Chance Hypothesis has been adequately ruled out

p. 111

mathematically and by empirical controls—we want to question the human reliability in the case. Are we dealing with real facts of actual occurrence or are they fictitious? It is a question, first, of the honesty and sincerity of the observers and the subjects, and, second, of the competence of the former.

[Fire in the Sky]

One really ought to begin with one's self, though I doubt if my own sincerity will seriously be questioned; an academic person has seldom, if ever, been found to work a deliberate hoax involving hard work and long hours for several years. Yet it is a possibility. Here, however, we have a whole set of persons involved: several assistants, who are responsible graduate assistants in our Department of Psychology. Four of these have done significant (i.e., X is above 4) E.S.P. work themselves and there have been other subjects who under observation have done significant

[Fire in the Sky]

work. There are in all eight major subjects whose work would individually constitute magnificent independent proof of E.S.P., so far as value of X goes. There are many minor subjects, too, whose work stands on its own merit, individually. I can think easily of 6 such, whose X value has been computed separately. There are, then, in addition, my colleagues and friends who have witnessed the subjects at work. Some of these, those who have seen Pearce work, are listed in Table XIX in Chapter VII. Among these seven witnesses are three psychologists, an education official and a professional magician. The very magnitude of the system of persons involved, whose names are herein published, must discourage any attempt at a charge of sheer dishonesty. Perhaps I may, for brevity's sake, refer the possible doubting reader to Dr. McDougall or Dr. Prince (both of whom have known me now for many years) concerning such a point.

[Fire in the Sky]

All the major subjects, themselves, have been witnessed to some extent and most of them almost entirely. Much of this witnessing has been done by trusted graduate assistants, young research students who are themselves going in for a psychological career and are fully responsible. The very division of this responsibility offers in itself a more complex obstacle to the "Fraud Hypothesis". Each one witnessed results of ample significance to prove E.S.P. on their own merit. Those subjects who have not been wholly witnessed throughout have in many cases shown better results when witnessed than when unwitnessed (see Table XXVIII, for one illustration; Stuart is another instance). And, finally, on the point of witnessing of subjects, there are several long and very significant series of

[Fire in the Sky]

tests by major subjects doubly witnessed, i.e., with two of us present. See, for example, Table XIX, Columns headed B and C. Note that Column C totals with a deviation over 23 times the p.e.—doubly witnessed figures. The honesty of the subjects does not matter under such conditions. But, in my judgment of them, these subjects are all splendidly

p. 112

sincere and reliable. Four of them, by the way, are graduate students and one of these an ordained minister.

[Fire in the Sky]

No one can, I think, long hold to the "Fraud Hypothesis" after reading the excellent results obtained, (1) with P.T. at a distance 1 (Tables XXXVII and XXXVIII), (2) under the D.T. conditions, witnessed, and with no sensory contact with the individual cards (Item 6, Table XVII) and (3) with the screen data (Item 5, XVII), no matter how doubtful of the subjects’ honesty one may be. The Fraud Hypothesis, then, may be abandoned also. The possibilities for the unconscious following of cues or marks on the cards, though equally well excluded by these results, will be considered separately and more fully under (c).

[Fire in the Sky]

(C) HYPOTHESIS OF INCOMPETENCE

In view of the simple technique used and the relatively simple computations required, it can hardly be seriously thought that the results herein reported are the consequence of errors made by the observers. Moreover, on this point, Mr. Pratt and I together witnessed several hundred of Mr. Pearce's best scores. Dr. Zener and I together witnessed 300 trials with Pearce, observing all points of the procedure together and using new cards. The deviation of the results is 9.4 times the p.e. for these 300 trials. None of the various observers have been able to point to any adequate weakness or combination of weaknesses in the procedure that could, in their judgment, explain the results. Some suggestions have been made for further improving the technique but no adequate loophole discovered. Again, the independent recording of the able assistants and myself is a check, to a certain extent, upon the competence and reliability of us all.